What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4726329 about?

The tribunal order states: The claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4726329?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726329?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9870933-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4726329 about?

The tribunal order states: The claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4726329?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726329?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9870933-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Hillside Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4726329 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Mr Shawn Shan attended the hearing by teleconference on behalf of the landlord. The tenant’s phone number, the last three digits being 018, was called twice without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The landlord has applied for termination and possession, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the application fee.

The landlord said the tenancy was vacated and believes the date it was vacated was 14 November 2023, as Mr Shan said he visited the property around 14 or 15 November 2023 and the tenant was no longer there. The landlord withdrew their claim for termination and possession at the hearing.

Any party bringing a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects, such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.

The landlord provided a rent summary prior to the hearing after being directed to do so, after providing some rent summaries that were not adequate. However, whilst the tenancy began on 21 February 2022, the rent summary provided only started on 13 September 2022. Mr Shan said the tenant had generally been paying rent up to September 2022 and so he thought he did not have to include the period before this. Further, whilst Mr Shan believed the tenancy ended on 14 November 2023, the rent summary only went up to 31 October 2023. Mr Shan said as he had issued the tenant a 14-day notice to rectify his rent arrears on 31 October 2023, he did not think he had to deal with rent owing or paid after that date. Therefore, the rent summary provided by the landlord was incomplete.

Further, the rent summary provided indicated that the tenant owed $25,165.00 up to 31 October 2023. There were at least 10 weeks straight where the tenant paid no rent, according to the rent summary. The landlord, when asked why no application was made to the Tribunal long before this amount of rent arrears was incurred, said he believed the tenant’s promises about paying rent. The landlord is under a duty to mitigate any rent loss by taking reasonable steps, pursuant to section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In relation to the refund of bond claim, Mr Shan said there was a bond paid by the tenant of $2,100.00, which is still held at the Bond Centre. Following the hearing, the Bond Centre confirmed that there was no bond lodged or held for this tenancy.

Given the evidence as outlined above, I find that the landlord has not proved the amount of rent owing by the tenant, nor the amount of bond held or where any bond might be held. Therefore, I dismiss these claims.

As I dismiss the claims, I do not order the reimbursement of the filing fee.

I do not order suppression as requested by the landlord as they have not been successful with their claim, nor have they provided any evidence as to why their interest in not having their name published outweighs the public interest in doing so.

Order

The claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Shawn Shan attended the hearing by teleconference on behalf of the landlord. The tenant’s phone number, the last three digits being 018, was called twice without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the application fee.
The landlord said the tenancy was vacated and believes the date it was vacated was 14 November 2023, as Mr Shan said he visited the property around 14 or 15 November 2023 and the tenant was no longer there. The landlord withdrew their claim for termination and possession at the hearing.
Any party bringing a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects, such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.
The landlord provided a rent summary prior to the hearing after being directed to do so, after providing some rent summaries that were not adequate. However, whilst the tenancy began on 21 February 2022, the rent summary provided only started on 13 September 2022. Mr Shan said the tenant had generally been paying rent up to September 2022 and so he thought he did not have to include the period before this. Further, whilst Mr Shan believed the tenancy ended on 14 November 2023, the rent summary only went up to 31 October 2023. Mr Shan said as he had issued the tenant a 14-day notice to rectify his rent arrears on 31 October 2023, he did not think he had to deal with rent owing or paid after that date. Therefore, the rent summary provided by the landlord was incomplete.
Further, the rent summary provided indicated that the tenant owed $25,165.00 up to 31 October 2023. There were at least 10 weeks straight where the tenant paid no rent, according to the rent summary. The landlord, when asked why no application was made to the Tribunal long before this amount of rent arrears was incurred, said he believed the tenant’s promises about paying rent. The landlord is under a duty to mitigate any rent loss by taking reasonable steps, pursuant to section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In relation to the refund of bond claim, Mr Shan said there was a bond paid by the tenant of $2,100.00, which is still held at the Bond Centre. Following the hearing, the Bond Centre confirmed that there was no bond lodged or held for this tenancy.
Given the evidence as outlined above, I find that the landlord has not proved the amount of rent owing by the tenant, nor the amount of bond held or where any bond might be held. Therefore, I dismiss these claims.
As I dismiss the claims, I do not order the reimbursement of the filing fee.
I do not order suppression as requested by the landlord as they have not been successful with their claim, nor have they provided any evidence as to why their interest in not having their name published outweighs the public interest in doing so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4726329 — Rent arrears at 37 Hillside Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4726329 — Rent arrears at 37 Hillside Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions